D&D Next Q&A 9 August

Crazy Jerome · Aug 10, 2012

Neonchameleon said:
This is not a problem. If you're going to have a class called the Fighter then he should absolutely rock at fighting. Especially if you're discarding the AEDU structure so the non-fighters are much better at things that don't involve fighting than the fighter.

And I don't see why Ranger and Paladin will necessarily avoid CS. They just won't get as much of it as the fighter.

This. I suspect that the confusion is caused by some short-hand being used in the playtest, with unexplained assumptions. Namely, that in some of the places where they are saying "fighter" here they should really be saying "martial" or "non-caster" or something like that. (And I suspect that they are avoid such language in part to keep people from gettting up in arms over whatever ideas it provokes--e.g. "martial" as a concept being confused with exactly the "4E martial power source."

As it happens, in the playtest, the fighter is the only "martial" class, though not the only non-caster. So in this case, I think they intend for CS to be the martial branch that substitutes for spells or rogue-ish trickery and skills.

Then when they get around to doing a hybrid martial/caster class such as the paladin, it becomes rather obvious how the split should break. To the extent that the paladin gets martial ability, it cuts into his spells. Up one, drop the other. (And then add on whatever else is needed to make the guy a "paladin"--a good working hybrid with its own flavor, as opposed to a fighter/cleric.)

That is, in the fighter/rogue/cleric/wizard playground, once the fighter has reasonable and pertinent toys to play with, same as those other three, then it becomes a lot easier to design the hybrids. You could make a case that a great deal of the ranger, paladin, barbarian, etc. issues in various editions have sprung from problems in the fighter itself. (Certainly not all, bu some.)

Mengu · Aug 10, 2012

Remathilis said:
Wizards get spells and cantrips. Cleric's get domains and channel divinities. Rogues get skill tricks and sneak attack dice.

Fighters have their own special toy now.

Then I propose Fighter's get only X dice for their dice pool per day, and start with X=2. Because that's the limitation Clerics and Wizards get for anything remotely interesting they can do. A refreshing dice pool every round is a *far* better mechanic than spells or sneak attack. Rogue has to figure out how to sneak attack, and it seems to usually be every other round, if that. Fighter can decide to basically "sneak attack" every round by adding extra damage, no CA or other special conditions required. Not only does he have it easy, he also has more options.

I like the dice pool mechanic that refreshes at the start of your turn. It is easy to keep track of, easy to use, and makes for a tactical, engaging, and fun decision making process. I'm all for it. But if that's the game we're going to play, that's what I want for the other characters too. After two spells, when my cleric boils down to doing X damage at range or Y damage in melee, that's not much of a character to play.

ZombieRoboNinja · Aug 10, 2012

DEFCON 1 said:
The answer in the second question that said "We’re also looking at giving you a third right out of the gate, based on the fighting style you selected." is in reference to the style you choose to build as referenced in question 1.

I kind of suspect the same, but it's still a somewhat odd choice of wording. I really doubt you'll need a specific "style" to be good with a particular type of weapon.

The other strong possibility I can imagine is that it's something like the 4e recommended builds, where each class comes with a couple suggests for starting skills/powers/etc. to help newer players get started.

AntiStateQuixote · Aug 10, 2012

Ahnehnois said:
It's why can the fighter do something that the other classes can't do at all. This system gives more granularity than BAB, so there's every opportunity to give fighters more and bigger dice with better uses, but that doesn't mean the entire concept should be fighter-only. Quite the contrary.

Wizards went to the wizards' tower to learn arcane magic.

Clerics studied at the church to learn divine magic.

Rogues worked on skill abilities and landing devastating kidney shots.

Fighters trained at the military academy and know fighting tricks that other folks just don't know.

Seems fine to me.

ZombieRoboNinja · Aug 10, 2012

Neonchameleon said:
This is not a problem. If you're going to have a class called the Fighter then he should absolutely rock at fighting. Especially if you're discarding the AEDU structure so the non-fighters are much better at things that don't involve fighting than the fighter.

But fighting IS part of the schtick for those other classes. The fighter can be a btIf a ranger is still doing 1d8 damage with a longbow at level 20 while a fighter does 1d8+5d12, to me that seems like a design failure.

And I don't see why Ranger and Paladin will necessarily avoid CS. They just won't get as much of it as the fighter.

Well, I'd rather rangers and paladins (and barbarians and monks) have their own unique mechanics than be glorified multiclass fighters.

When people were talking about different kinds of spellcasters, Mearls mentioned that it might help to differentiate different classes to have different mechanics. I think the same applies here. The fighter uses CS because he doesn't have a lot of stored up daily resources, but can pivot from offense to defense in a second. The rogue gets Sneak Attack because he may not be the best duelist in town, but let him catch you unprepared and he's brutal. If we're not cheering for WOTC to come up with equally elegant mechanics to capture the ranger's deadly focus and the barbarian's surging adrenaline, we're expecting too little.

Cybit · Aug 10, 2012

Ahhhhhhhhhh @ Ahnehnois -- that makes more sense. I was more annoyed at the idea of combat superiority dice in general for everyone.

That said, I still don't like it; I think it should be a fighter only shtick, and promotes the "sameiness" that 4E can come off as. (I say this as an stalwart fan of 4E, mind you.)

Crazy Jerome · Aug 10, 2012

The idea that every class should have its own distinct and powerful mechanical toy is the same kind of simplistic design that led to every 4E class having its own list of powers. It's got a certain amount of "different for the sake of being different" behind it that inevitably leads to a lot of "filling out the grid"--which in turn leads to the very redundancy that is ostensibly being avoided. Maybe not if you only have 4-6 classes, but assuming that isn't the case, such redundancy is inevitable.

On the other hand, the idea that every class should have its own distinct schtick that really hits the center of the class flavor is a useful, if more amorphous and difficult goal. Having a different mechanic that is used by a minority of classes, maybe even only one, is one way to pursue that schtick, but not the only one. Certainly, the more truly distinct and powerful mechanical toys you have to play with, the more options you have.

Ultimately, though, the distinct schtick for the class is realized by the combination of all the things that go into the class, very rarely the toy itself. It may very well be that combat superiority can develop into something that practically defines the fighter by itself, the same way that "master of arcane spells" is the wizard's schtick. But you'll note that once you get past the first few classes, "caster of arcane spells" is not confined to the wizard. That's why "master of arcane spells" has relevance.

ZombieRoboNinja · Aug 10, 2012

Mengu said:
Then I propose Fighter's get only X dice for their dice pool per day, and start with X=2. Because that's the limitation Clerics and Wizards get for anything remotely interesting they can do.

Well, judging from the recent PA podcast, healing is getting moved over to Channel Divinity, so that's 5 a day for clerics.

Not to mention infinite cantrips/orisons for both classes. And the level 1 fighter gets +1d4 damage or DR; it's not like he's walking on water.

A refreshing dice pool every round is a *far* better mechanic than spells or sneak attack. Rogue has to figure out how to sneak attack, and it seems to usually be every other round, if that. Fighter can decide to basically "sneak attack" every round by adding extra damage, no CA or other special conditions required. Not only does he have it easy, he also has more options.

But a level 5 rogue in 5e will have +5d6 sneak attack, and the fighter only gets 2d6 CS. Plus he can use his crazy skill bonuses and class abilities to basically vanish whenever he feels like it. Plus, I fully expect the rogue will have other tricks we haven't seen yet.

I like the dice pool mechanic that refreshes at the start of your turn. It is easy to keep track of, easy to use, and makes for a tactical, engaging, and fun decision making process. I'm all for it. But if that's the game we're going to play, that's what I want for the other characters too. After two spells, when my cleric boils down to doing X damage at range or Y damage in melee, that's not much of a character to play.

So "doing x+1d4 damage at range or y+1d4 damage in melee" is going to fix this problem? I'd say the more suitable change would be for the cleric to have more/better orisons or more spells, so that your tactical options fit the class. (For example, the playtest wizard with the Magic User theme has several interesting cantrips to choose from each round, even when he's not burning Vancian spells.)

Mustrum_Ridcully · Aug 10, 2012

My Fighter Dailies idea was using Stamina as a special resource the Fighter had. When I thought about it, I could also see other classes having "Stamina" - but maybe with a slightly different selection of abilities to use it for, and maybe also having something else.
Let's forget my Stamina idea here but the idea of this Combat Superiority Mechanic.

At it's core, the Fighter is so superior in combat that he doesn't need any special conditions to use unique maneuvers.

The Rogue is different - he hasn't really mastered combat the way the Fighter has, but he has a talent for fighting dirty. He needs advantage, but this allows him to use backstabbing and sneak attack abilities.

Now, the Ranger could combine this. He's more used to fighting than the Rogue, even in "fair" situations, but he also tends to use ambushes and similar methods. So he actually mixes some of the combat superiority of the Fighter with some of the underhanded tactics of the Rogue. He may use the basic mechanics for either, but may also have a slightly different selection of abilities to use them with.

Both combat superiority and sneak attack are expressed in dice. It seems almost logical that the Rogue can also use his dice for special maneuvers - but they may be different from the Fighter (possibly focusing on stuff that makes it easier for the Rogue to get away). So, if the Rogue has advantage, he can use his cunning for sneak attack to deal extra damage, or use it to power certain techniques. (Say, Harmstringing a foe to slow him down, tumbling, hiding in plain sight...)

The Ranger combines this - he may have half the dice in combat superiority the Fighter has and half the dice in sneak attack the Rogue has, and has a few different maneuvers. He may have some combat superiority tricks that allow him to move faster, ignore difficult terrain, and maybe to use two weapons and bows particularly well (where the fighter is potentially a master of any weapon). His cunning abilities may focus on reading the foe (quarry) to adapt his fighting style. While the Rogue's signature ability with Cunning is Sneak Attack, and the FIghter's is plain extra damage, the Ranger may have "Quarry", a combination of Combat Superiority and Cunning that allows him to select a foe to deal extra damage against one specific foe.

This maintains the idea that the Fighter is the absolute combat expert with his unique abilities, but it also highlights that these abilities can be picked up by anyone giving enough training - but only the Fighter is the one that focuses entirely on this training.

I'm A Banana · Aug 10, 2012

Pour said:
@Kamikaze Midget can speak more about the underlying mechanics given a certain spin becoming suddenly innovative instead of stifling (unless I'm confusing people).

Yeah, I am one of the folks who realized that CS is effectively: "Take a penalty to your damage rolls, do some trick," and not entirely unlike Weapons of Legacy or 3e feats like Expertise.

But to that point...

I think each class deserves their own -- unique -- mechanics.

Clerics have Channel Divinity (turn undead, etc.).

Wizards have spellbooks (Vancian style!)

Fighters have Combat Superiority.

Rogues have an assortment of urban/dungeon exploration skills (and/or stealth attacks).

Barbarians have rage and/or an assortment of physical skills.

Rangers get multi-attacks (with bows or with blades or whatever) and/or an assortment of wilderness exploration skills.

Monks have psionic/ki abilities and are wuxia pseudo-magic.

Etc.

So I don't think CS needs to be expanded to other classes. In fact, I hope it doesn't, because the Fighter deserves a flexible, powerful mechanic all to themselves.

If you want CS for yourself (at a reduced rate), that's what Multiclassing is for, IMO. If you want to be better at hitting things and have more options for killing them, multiclass into Fighter. If you want unmatched combat versatility, that's what the Fighter is there for. That's their schtick, their awesomeness. If you want more fighting ability, dip into Fighter.

CS certainly COULD apply to anything done with a weapon, hypothetically. It's broad enough. But there's no reason it SHOULD be, since there are also other things you can do aside from "Take a penalty to damage, do something kewl," things that make other classes stand out in their own personal little niches.

It's important, IMO, that classes regain their distinctiveness, and I don't think CS is the solution to everything attack rolls any more than I think Vancian magic is the solution to everything magic.

Mengu said:
A refreshing dice pool every round is a *far* better mechanic than spells or sneak attack.

It's better in combat. But that's the point.

Right now, the playtest fighter has a +2 bonus to all damage rolls, making them *far* better at fighting than spells or sneak attacks let you be, simply because they pump out more damage, have a higher AC, and a higher HP value. Sleep might end a weak fight, but the fighter probably could cut through them anyway.

Which is, IMO, about where it should be.